SUPPAHIRE EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,THANJAVUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD,, TRICHY

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

144B of the Act with reference to making assessment or reassessment of total income or loss of assessee. The impugned notice dated 27th August, 2022 has been issued by respondent ITA Nos.2416 & 2417/Chny/2024 (AY 2018-19) Sappahire Educational & Charitable Trust :: 8 :: no.1 (JAO) and not by the NFAC, which is not in accordance with the aforesaid Scheme. 33 The guideline

MANICKAM CHETTIAR VELMURUGAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC-19(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

144B of the Act with reference to making assessment or reassessment of total income or loss of assessee. The impugned notice dated 27th August, 2022 has been issued by respondent no.1 (JAO) and not by the NFAC, which is not in accordance with the aforesaid Scheme. 33 The guideline dated 1st August 2022 relied upon by the Revenue

MANICKAM CHETTIAR VELMURUGAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC-19(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

144B of the Act with reference to making assessment or reassessment of total income or loss of assessee. The impugned notice dated 27th August, 2022 has been issued by respondent no.1 (JAO) and not by the NFAC, which is not in accordance with the aforesaid Scheme. 33 The guideline dated 1st August 2022 relied upon by the Revenue

THANARAJ SUMATHI,MAYILADUTHURAI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2031/Chny/2025 यनिाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2019-20 Thanaraj Sumathi, Income Tax Officer, No.3/25, North Street, Vs. Ward-1 Moovalur, Kumbakonam. Mayiladuthurai – 609806. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Knyps-1061-J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Cit. सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2025

144B of the Act with reference to making assessment or reassessment of total income or loss of assessee. The impugned notice dated 27th August, 2022 has been issued by respondent no.1 (JAO) and not by the NFAC, which is not in accordance with the aforesaid Scheme. 33 The guideline dated 1st August 2022 relied upon by the Revenue

CHAHIDA BEGAM,PUDUCHERRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, PUDUCHERRY RANGE, INCOME TAX OFFICE, PUDUCHERRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

144B of the Act with reference to making assessment or reassessment of total income or loss of assessee. The impugned notice dated 27th August, 2022 has been issued by respondent no.1 (JAO) and not by the NFAC, which is not in accordance with the aforesaid Scheme. 33 The guideline dated 1st August 2022 relied upon by the Revenue

FURSHANA GARMENTS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-11(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

144B of the Act with reference to making assessment or reassessment of total income or loss of assessee. The impugned notice dated 27th August, 2022 has been issued by respondent no.1 (JAO) and not by the NFAC, which is not in accordance with the aforesaid Scheme. 33 The guideline dated 1st August 2022 relied upon by the Revenue

KRISHNAN SARAVANAN,ODDANCHATRAM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1, MADURAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1523/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-2014) Shri. Krishnan Saravanan, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of 383/E-5D, Bye Pass Road, Income Tax-1, Oddanchatram 624 619. Madurai. [Pan: Asyps 5316H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Bharath Janarthanan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri.S.R.Karuppusamy, Irs, Cit.

144B of the Act by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act when infact an appeal was pending before the National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi against the order which was revised by the learned Respondent involving the same subject matter of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and therefore, in violation of clause

M/S.MAHOGANY LOGISTICS SERVICES PVT. LTD.,MADURAI vs. PCIT, MADURAI-1

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1631/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Mahogany Logistics Services Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax-1, 10, Jawahar Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai. Madurai 625 002. [Pan:Aafcd8781R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Madurai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company [Earlier Known As M/S. Drsr Logistics Services Private Limited] Filed Its Return Of Income For The Ay 2018-19 Claiming Loss Of ₹.31,28,98,436/- Under 2

TDS. The Assessing Officer completed the scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 25.08.2021 by disallowing

ARTHI BALIGA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NFAC, , DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1559/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthi Baliga, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 15, Flat No. 3-C, Coral Woods Income Tax, Chennai-4, Apartment, Sri Ram Nagar, South Chennai. Street, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Bkjpb5416P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate & Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-4, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

144B of the Act dated 30.03.2022 is erroneous since the Assessing Officer did not make any addition on account of the share of the capital gains arising in the hands of the assessee in the capacity of one of the legal heirs of the deceased partner. Accordingly, the assessee was given an opportunity to explain as to why proceedings under

RAMANIYAM REAL ESTATES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-I, LTU,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2439/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ramaniyam Real Estates Private Limited. 17/35, Ii Main Road, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 020. [Pan: Aaacr-2276-A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Acit, Vs. Circle -1, Ltu, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Girish Kumar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.01.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Herein After “Ld.Cit(A)] Dated 13.08.2025 & Pertains To

TDS provisions had no application to the facts of the present case and hence ought to have appreciated that the disallowance provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act had no applicability, thereby vitiating the related findings. 11. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that having not taken into consideration the exceptions carved out in relation thereto including

RAGHAVAN,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, NCC-22(1), TAMBARAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1776/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Raghavan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 3503, Bay View House, Hiraranan, Non Corporate Circle 22(1). 5/63, Omr, Egattur, Thazambur, Tambaram, Chennai. Kanchipuram District, Tamil Nadu. 600 130 [Pan:Ajjpv9178L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.06.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Raised 12 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is 2

144B of the Act accepting the returned income of the assessee. 4. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act by issuing show-cause notice under section 274 r.w.s. 270A of the Act dated 12.03.2024 for under reporting of income. In response, the assessee e-filed his reply dated 05.04.2024 and the contents are reproduced

GUARDIAN INDIA OPERATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

144B of the Act on 21.04.2021 accepting the return income as assessed income. 4. Succinctly stated, the facts involved in the present case which will have a strong bearing on the adjudication of the same are for the sake of clarity are culled out in a chronological manner, as under: Sl.No Particulars Page No. 1 Intimation under section

KRISHNAVEL UMAMAHESWARI,MADURAI vs. ACIT, NCC-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1299/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Krishnavel Umamaheswari, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 10E, Nallamadan Koil Lane, Income Tax, North Masi Street, Madurai 625 001. Non Corporate Circle 1, Madurai. [Pan:Aaopu8528K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Raised 2 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A)

section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 28.03.2022. Against the additions made in the assessment order, the assessee preferred further appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer since there was no compliance to hearing notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) or filed a written submissions in support

REVATHIKUMAR SUDHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCW-19(1, CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 304 & 305/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Revathikumar Sudha, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 29, 3Rd Main Road, Thilaiganga Income Tax, Nagar, Chennai 600 061. Non Corporate Ward –19(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aztps-8926-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Both Dated 12.12.2024 Pertains To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Towards Quantum Addition As Well As Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

TDS under section 194IA of the Act was to be deducted @1% which was not done by the assessee. Since the Assessing Officer satisfied that the income arised out of difference of stamp duty value and purchase consideration of immovable property chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, proceedings under section 147 of the Act was initiated by issuing notice under

REVATHIKUMAR SUDHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCW-19(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 304 & 305/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Revathikumar Sudha, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 29, 3Rd Main Road, Thilaiganga Income Tax, Nagar, Chennai 600 061. Non Corporate Ward –19(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aztps-8926-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Both Dated 12.12.2024 Pertains To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Towards Quantum Addition As Well As Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

TDS under section 194IA of the Act was to be deducted @1% which was not done by the assessee. Since the Assessing Officer satisfied that the income arised out of difference of stamp duty value and purchase consideration of immovable property chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, proceedings under section 147 of the Act was initiated by issuing notice under

THENMOZHI GANESAN,DINDIGUL vs. PCIT, , MADURAI-1

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1628/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Thenmozhi Ganesan, The Principal Commissioner Of 13A, Collectorate, Vs. Income Tax, Indira Nagar, Madurai. Dindigul 624 004. Pan: Adtpt 8145C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Bhupendran, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madurai-1 [‘Pcit’ I Short] Dated 25.03.2024 For Assessment Years 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On 1-5 Grounds Which Are As Under: Ita No.1628 /Chny/2024 ‘’1) The Order Of The Learned Pcit Is Bad & Erroneous In Law. 2) The Learned Pcit Erred In Not Considering The Submission Filed By The Appellant In Proper Perspective. 3) The Learned Pcit Erred In Not Considering The Scope & Effect Of The Amendment Made In Section 40(A)(Ia) In Proper Perspective. 4) The Order By The Learned Pcit Directing The Assessing Officer To Pass A Fresh Assessment Order By Disallowing 100 Percent U/S. 40(A)(Ia), Without Cancelling The Earlier Assessment Order, As Mandated By Section 263 Is Bad In Law. 5) Invoking Section 263, When The Issue Of Disallowance U/S. 40(A)(Ia), At The Time Of Passing The Assessment Order Dated 10/03/2022 U/S.148, Was Not Free From Doubt, Is Not Legally Tenable’.

144B dated 10.03.2022 was passed, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Shree Chaudhary Transport Co. Vs Income Tax Officer dated 29.07.2020 [AIR 2020 SC 4003, AIRONLINE 2020 SC 665] was available, binding which has already settled the controversy whether amendment in section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by Finance (No.2) Act, w.e.f

M/S. ARULMIGU EKAMBARANATHAR TEMPLE,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-2 (EXEMPTIONS), CHENNAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Arulmigu Ekambaranathar I.T.O., Temple, Vs. Ward-2 (Exemptions), No. 121, T.S. No. 2796, Ekambaranathar Mahatma Gandhi Road, Sannadhi St., Nungambakkam, Kanchipuram-631502. Chennai-600034. Pan No. Aaaja 1794 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

TDS return. Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) was issued to the assessee asking for filing return of income but in response of notice under Section 148 of the Act, the assessee has neither filed return of income nor reply has been submitted. Other statutory notices were issued by the Assessing Officer

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX , CHENNAI vs. M/S. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

section 144B of the Act on 23.03.2024 wherein the following additions/disallowances were made: (a) Disallowance u/s.36(1)(via) to the tune of Rs.23,81,41,32,548/-. (b) Disallowance on expenditure of Prior Period of Rs.1,09,49,423/-. (c) Disallowance of loss on translation of monetary items of Rs.1,30,27,47,570/-. (d) Disallowance of excess depreciation